Dear Lulu,
On today’s LBC Mayoral debate, Ken Livingstone was at it again, telling more lies in a desperate attempt to get elected. Today alone, he told 12 lies.
The Mayoral election on 3rd May is about trust and Ken Livingstone has yet again shown that he simply cannot be trusted.

Lie 1: Ken Livingstone said he wouldn’t introduce a £25 congestion charge.
• Reality: Last year he said he would introduce a £25 congestion charge. ‘Oh yes the £25 charge for gas guzzlers we’ll be straight back for that because we now know that at least 4000 people die a year prematurely because of our poor air quality’ (Scoop Website, 6 April 2011, link).

Lie 2: Ken Livingstone said he wouldn’t extend the Western Extension Zone.
• Reality: He promised the Labour Party he would. ‘I will reintroduce the Western Extension of the congestion charge’ (Ken Livingstone Candidacy Manifesto, 2010, link).

Lie 3: Ken Livingstone said he would restore EMA.
• Reality: Independent sources say he doesn’t have the money. Channel 4’s Factcheck have independently coasted this proposal at £55 million a year. Ken Livingstone says he would get colleges, universities and local authorities to pay for this pledge but, as Channel 4’s Factcheck found, he has no power to force them to fund it and many have already flatly refused to pay for it (Channel 4 News, Factcheck: could Ken save the EMA in London, 2 March 2012, link). £55 million a year is £220 million over a four-year term.

Lie 4: Ken Livingstone claimed current police numbers were only at 31,128.
• Reality: Official Met data shows there will be more than 32,000 by April. According to the Met, there are 209 new officers coming on board in April, bringing the total officer numbers to 32,468 – well over a thousand above the number Boris Johnson inherited.

Lie 5: Ken Livingstone said his fares policy would cost £269m over four years.
• Reality: His own campaign document says it would cost £269m in the first year alone. ‘Ken’s Fare Deal costs £269mn in the first year’ (Ken Livingstone Campaign, How Ken can afford to cut fares, March 2012, link).

Lie 6: Ken Livingstone said the days lost to strikes under his mayoralty decreased by 98%; “In the 8 years that I was mayor the number of days, shifts lost by strikes was cut by 98%”
• Reality: There was no reduction in days of strikes. There were 2 days of strikes in 2001. There were 2 days of strikes in 2008. There was no reduction in the number of days of strikes (TfL Strike Data, 2000-2011).

Lie 7: Ken Livingstone claimed he paid income tax on everything he gets.
• Reality: Ken Livingstone is a tax avoider. Ken Livingstone has vehemently attacked tax avoidance. He wrote in the Sun in 2009 about tax avoiders: ‘these rich bastards just don’t get it’ (The Sun, 12 Mach 2012, link). But while Mayor from 2000 – 2006, his income was paid into a shady private company:
o Ken Livingstone owned a private business for most of his mayoralty. Ken Livingstone set up LocalAction Ltd in 1986, and did not dissolve it until 17 October 2006. It was open for six of the eight years he was mayor (Companies House website, accessed 8 March 2012).
o Almost £221,000 was paid to Localaction in 21 months. He was paid £220,992 for speaking and other engagements between July 1998-February 2000, which was paid into his company Localaction (S&P Select Committee, Seventh Report Appendix, 8 March 2000, link).
o He failed to declare this properly while an MP. John Jones MP lodged a formal complaint with the Standards and Privileges committee, which was upheld (S&P Select Committee, Seventh Report Appendix, 8 March 2000, link).
o By paying himself through a company, he paid less tax. By paying money into a company, it came under corporation tax, 20 per cent in 2000, not the higher rate income tax, 40 per cent in 2000 (HMT archive, link).
o He claimed this was only tax avoidance if he did not withdraw money. He denied tax avoidance because the money was taxed when it was paid to him from the company: ‘It is only a tax avoidance option provided you're not drawing the money out’ (Sunday Times, 23 January 2000).
o In 2008, he set up a new company before he left office. Silveta Ltd was incorporated on 23 April 2008 (Daily Telegraph, 26 February 2012, link; Companies House website, accessed 8 March 2012, link).
o Earnings of £320,000 have been paid into Silveta Ltd with almost nothing withdrawn. In 2009 and 2010 (only available years) he has drawn out barely any money from the company. By June 2010, the company had earned £320,000 (Daily Telegraph, 26 February 2012, link).
o By his own definition, he is avoiding up tax. In 2000, he said: ‘It is only a tax avoidance option provided you're not drawing the money out’. Ken Livingstone has avoided around £50,000 tax (Daily Telegraph, 29 February 2012, link; Sunday Times, 23 January 2000).

Lie 8: Ken Livingstone claimed that in his last year as Mayor 43% of housing built was affordable.
• Reality: In his last year the proportion of affordable housing was just 33%. In the last report monitoring affordable housing builds before Ken Livingstone left office the proportion of completions which were affordable had fallen to 33 per cent (GLA, London Plan Annual Monitoring Report, 4, February 2008, p. 9, link)

Lie 9: Ken Livingstone claimed there would be no increase in the congestion charge.
• Reality: Ken Livingstone broke his promise before on this and will again. Ken Livingstone in 2003 promised that the Congestion Charge would not be increased for ten years (BBC News Online, 25 February 2003,link). However, just two years later in 2005 he increased it by 60 per cent, from £5 to £8 in 2005 (BBC News Online, 1 April 2005, link).
o We know this because Ken Livingstone is in a pre-election pact with the Green Party, who want to increase congestion charging. Ken Livingstone and the Green Party Mayoral candidate Jenny Jones have formed a pre-election pact. They are both recommending to their members that they give their second preference votes to each other:
• Ken Livingstone says Jenny Jones will be a ‘key part’ in his administration. Livingstone has said “...if I am elected, Jenny Jones will be a key part in my administration” (Mayor Watch Website, 24 March 2012, link).
• Jenny Jones wants to introduce a new congestion charge. Jenny Jones let slip in an interview with LBC what the true impact of the Labour/Green pact on Londoners will be. When asked whether she would reintroduce the Western Extension, she said: ‘Oh no, we are absolutely not going to do that. We’ve got a much better scheme that we are going to bring in over the four years of the next Mayoralty. And that is a Pay As You Go for drivers, for car users, well for all vehicle users. And this can raise over £1 billion a year’ (LBC, Iain Dale Show, 15 February 2012).
• She would raise the congestion to £40. Jenny Jones admitted on the Sunday Politics Show that she would only look to introduce the Pay As You Go scheme after the first three years of the Mayoralty. Up until then, she will look to raise the congestion charge to £15 for smaller cars and £40 for larger family cars (BBC TV, Sunday Politics Show, 1 April 2012).

Lie 10: Ken Livingstone claimed his expenses as mayor were ‘miniscule.’
• Reality: Ken Livingstone claimed £66,000 on the City Hall credit card. This included £256 for a pair of shoes, more than £6,000 on alcohol, £6,404 on 1st class flights to Florida and £466 for dinner with a Cuban translator (Mayor of London, Mayor’s Question Time, 0761/2012 Appendix K, 22 February 2012, link; Mayor of London, Mayor’s Question Time – Written Answers, 1084/2012, 14 March 2012, link; Mayor of London, Mayor’s Question Time – Written Answers, 1085/2012, 14 March 2012, link; Mail on Sunday, 1 April 2012).

Lie 11: Ken Livingstone claimed he only had four lunches a year as mayor.
• Reality: Ken Livingstone's corporate credit card receipts show that he had 47 lunches or dinners in his last four years as Mayor - almost an average of one a month (Mayor of London, Mayor’s Question Time, 0761/2012 Appendix K, 22 February 2012, link; Mayor of London, Mayor’s Question Time – Written Answers, 1084/2012, 14 March 2012, link; Mayor of London, Mayor’s Question Time – Written Answers, 1085/2012, 14 March 2012, link).

Lie 12: Ken Livingstone claimed TfL had a £830 million surplus.
• Reality: Ken Livingstone keeps changing the amount of the ‘surplus’ he says will fund his fare cut. First he said the money could be funded from a £729 million surplus (Ken Livingstone Campaign, Fare Deal Factsheet, link). Then he said it could be funded by a surplus of £206 million (Ken Livingstone Campaign, Press Release, 5 December 2011, link). Then he said it would be funded with a surplus of £338 million (Ken Livingstone Campaign, Press Release, 2 February 2012, link). Now he says the surplus is £727 million (Ken Livingstone Campaign, How Ken can afford to cut fares, March 2012, link). Now on LBC on 3 April he said the surplus was £830 million (LBC Radio, 3 April 2012).
• Independent factcheckers confirm Ken Livingstone’s plan will take more than £1 billion out of the transport budget. Channel 4 Factcheck states: ‘TfL argues that if Mr Livingstone was to cut fares by 7 per cent, the move would reduce the income from fares by £1.12bn over this parliament’ (Channel 4, Factcheck Blog, 24 January 2012, link).

or did they act quite nice and cordially towards each other for a while? Seem to remember Johnson refusing to discuss Livingstone's SECRET LOVECHILD and slagging off the journalist who asked him about it and Ken doing similar when asked more personal questions about Johnson. Now they're happy to slander each other.

Did I just imagine that they were being fairly pleasant to each other?

I sit, just me.
There’s no one else
Not in here
Just me
A distant rumbling reconnoitres my cavernous figure to egress
I could pass gas as I sit, just me
There’s no one else
I shall do it
I shall
Before I’m met
While there’s no one else
Just me
Then relief
Sensual appreciation tails snorts of anticipation
…But hark!
Impending footsteps introduce an imminent intruder
A hasty waft suffices not
The door swings wide
And I sit, just me
Irrefutably responsible for the resounding putrid pooey pong.

I've just realised that something Boris did is actually pretty awesome. He's been pushing for the removal of railings/barriers from crossings and roadsides. They always seemed pretty dangerous to me: not bulky enough to stop a car, but prevented people from actually getting onto the pavement when lots of people were waiting at the other side.

I ride past there every day to work and it's really good that they've taken them away. It's a bus lane and there's no space at all. I almost got squashed once when a bus tried to overtake as he went round the corner with me on the inside (even though there was clearly not enough room). Very neasly got crusshed between the bus and the railings. My pedal scrapped up the side of the bus because I had nowhere to go. That's no longer a problem. If you were in the same predicament you could just jump up on the path.

Also, when riding through places like Kings Cross you don't have a lot of room between the cars and the railings on the outside and, although I haven't done it yet, it would be very easy to catch your handlebars in the rail and fling either you off your bike or your bike into the side of the car.

I now stand in the traffic island expecting some lorry to casually swipe someone and kill it.

Honestly, I don't think they were a bad thing. Yeah, maybe it was a bit more annoying to cross the road but without them people will just dash across more so there may be an increase in pedestrians being hit by cars.

Even ignoring the obvious thing wrong with this post, the mental aspects of the Greens (anti-nuclear power, the dodgy New Age type stuff) doesn't really bear much weight against voting for their Mayoral candidate - she's hardly going to be in charge of nuclear policy.

especially with the games n that coming up. Either of them will make our country look shit on the day. I say we make David Beckham the mayor of London whilst the games are on. He will have to talk at the opening ceremony in just his pants though.

That was my point, really. Just because they've done a survey where people have idealistically said, "Yeah, I'm really afraid, that's why I don't ride my bike," because they don't want to think they're actually the sort of person who buys a gym membership they don't use or will actually be one of the thousands of people who would continue to have a bike rusting away in the shed.

As an aside I wonder if they discovered what would make these ~2 million Londoners feel that riding a bike was 'safe'?

There are more than just this website that proves that people are frightened of cycling in London, and why wouldn't they be? In Kings Cross ALONE, there were abotu 10 deaths last year not to mention accidents and near misses there. Do you cycle in London? It IS scary.

I don't primarily because I'm scared, which is partly because I'm as much of a danger to myself as any motorist, given I don't drive.

But here's the thing: the only way it could be safe enough that I wasn't scared was if there were cycle only lanes everywhere where cars couldn't get on, which isn't practical or even likely.

And even if that was the case most times I'd probably opt to travel on the tube into work so I could read my book, so really the bottom line is that I'm lazy, because if I *really* wanted to ride to work I'd get on my bike and do it.

Here are some other points:
- yes, loads of people are killed on cycles every year. Do you have statistics on how many pedestrians and motorists also died in Kings Cross? People get killed in London every day in accidents that could probably have been prevented.

- I wonder how many people who are frightened are frightened of being attacked, etc. on their bicycles, which is more of a general issue rather than cycle one specifically, which is part of my point about it being a very vague sounding statistic.

But this cycle roads where cars can't get on, do exist. I have some cycle maps at home, from TFL, which show safer roads and not so safe roads and sustran routes etc etc. You should apply for some if you are interested in cycling safely in London as they're free and really good.

where they will educate people on how to be a safe road user. Just because you can't drive it doesn't mean you can't be a safe road user. CG doesn't drive and he rides through kinds cross unscathed every day.

but you can't tell other people they're not voting right. Mostly people look towards whats going to benefit them directly and not whats going to benefit london as a whole...otherwise we wouldn't vote individually, we'd vote as a group or something i dunno

There's a world of difference between deciding certain policies are better for you than others and making one issue the most important one. All I'm saying is the site appears to be based on the idea that you could isolate running London to the question of bike policies and I find that depressing.

They're just highlighting which one has the best policies for cyclists and then you can take it from there. I don't think they're expecting you to base your vote entirely on cycling but they might see that Ken, for example, is planning to do something about the blackspots and then you can go from there to looking more into Ken's policies about policing and see if that benefits you.

My point above applies to all kinds of voting. You don't vote for whats going to help your neighbour out, you want it to help you out. i.e. if you're a single mum, you want to vote for someone who will improve your life rather in an important way rather than somenoe who will improve the quality of the road you drive down once a week....if you get what I mean?

I have always voted Labour in the past on the principle that broadly they have policies that should help the poorer and less advantaged members of society. That's why I don't complain about the amount of tax I pay, because it would make me a massive hypocrite.

If you get people behind one issue like this if it becomes big enough that the candidates all have to change their manifesto to accommodate it we don't know what they have to drop that's not as high profile. Admittedly this is a problem with popularising politics everywhere, but this just seems a bit Kony2012 to me.

She says it's dangerous because you have to weave in and out of cars, but they show her riding round a particularly busy section of Holborn pulling out into the road without indicating or even looking! Yes, weaving in and out is dangerous, but do yourself a fucking favour love and let other road users know what you're going to do rather than aimlessly swerving all over the place and just assuming everyone else knows what you're going to do.

Ooh look, cycling in London is really dangerous, so i'm going to head out with no helmet, no lights, no safety gear at all. That'll make me safer!

in a dress, through london, in rush hour? They are the most ridiculously annoying cyclists OF ALL TIME. They pootle along, wobbling all over the place because they've got loads of bread in their basket.

The lights comment was because she has no reflective gear on at all, the least she could do if she doesn't want to wear neon, she could put some lights on her bike. It may be daylight but you can still not be seen by someone whilst driving along. I know i look like an utter belm when I'm riding a bike but i'd rather look like an idiot with loads of neon than not be seen a little in a car/lorries blind spot. They're more likely to see a little bit of neon in the corner of their eye than they are a floral dress.

The whole thing has got me angry because they're trying to campaign for safer cycling through London yet the first cyclist they show is someone who is weaving in and out of traffic, without a helmet on. Thats not safe cycling! If other people want to ride like that, fine. But I'm not going to say thats a fine way of riding as she'll probably get hit by a car one day and have her head smashed up because she didn't wear a helmet so she could look pretty on her bike.

She *is* riding unsafely. Very unsafely (and not just in her dress, but also her 'style' - swerving around vehicles in built up areas without indicating for example). And whilst she might be 'allowed' to do that if she wishes, it makes her a pretty bad advocate for safer cycling and an odd choice to front a campaign. If she were to get hit by a car and was badly injured she would, in part, be to blame herself. Just in the same way that if you crash in a car and you're not wearing a seatbelt, the 'extra' damage done is partially your own fault, even if the crash was outside of your control. Fact is, you should have been wearing a seatbelt because accidents happen.

I've listened to it with sound since I saw it yesterday. My points still stand. She just says that its dangerous to weave in and out of traffic, which it is and that she didn't have to do that in Copenhagen.

So what are they gonna do about that then?

I don't think you actually want to talk about this and would rather just ignore what I'm saying and just try to pull me up on...well nothing, for no reason. So never mind, ay?

I don't want politicians to campaign on a single issue because it's stupid. But this site is essentially trying to reduce each candidate to a single issue. "Hey, it's way safer on the roads on my bike. Oh look my bike got nicked because the candidate with the safest road policy for bikes happened to have no fucking clue about policing."

on people across the country, and often the wider world, are facilitated by a swathe of people who frankly, couldn't give less of a fuck. It is on our watch, and whether you blame the MEEDJA, or the political system as it stands,the point is, it is what it is... so when you see the very real effects of certain policies, that you couldn't believe any feeling human would condone if actually forced to confront, it is galling to hear decent people shrug, go 'meh' and then get pissy when people suggest that it may be healthy to get informed and have a stake it the type of society that is being constructed and/or demolished around them.

I'd much rather London was run by some clumsy, filthy rich guy with no idea how anyone else lives than by someone who gets so pissed off with stuff that's going wrong he makes a point of complaining about it. And who's old: DIE ALL OLD FOLK.

For example, if David Cameron et al shouldn't be telling poor people what to do because they're 'out of touch' with them, then why the fuck should rich people listen to poor people about how they live their lives or spend their money? Poor people don't understand what it's like to be rich, so they probably shouldn't have a say in how they spend their money or arrange their tax affairs.